Abstract

Although clinical guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis across a wide array of surgical procedures have been proposed by multidisciplinary groups of physicians and pharmacists, clinicians often deviate from recommendations. This is particularly true when recommendations are based on weak data or expert opinion. The goal of this review is to highlight certain common but controversial topics in perioperative prophylaxis and to focus on the data that does exist for the recommendations being made.

Mandates to improve antibiotic stewardship and reduce unnecessary antibiotic use1–4 have compelled healthcare institutions to take a closer look at the divide between guidelines for perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis and clinical practice,5,6 highlighting the fact that human nature makes providing less inherently more controversial than providing more when it comes to antibiotic prophylaxis. Some of the more common reasons for using antibiotics unnecessarily in the perioperative setting include entrance into abdominal cavity, higher estimated blood loss, and longer procedures.7 Although clinical guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis across a wide array of surgical procedures have been proposed by a collaborative, multidisciplinary group of physicians and pharmacists,8 widely cited, and reiterated,9 clinicians often deviate from recommendations, especially when recommendations are based on weak data. The goal of this review is to highlight certain common but controversial topics in perioperative prophylaxis.

The principles of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis are evidenced-based, but there are limitations. Available studies may include outdated surgical techniques, antibiotics that are no longer used, and newer antibiotics that have not been studied in the perioperative setting. Additionally, the operating environment has evolved over time to include significant reductions in circulating air particles and improvements in how those particles move relative to the patient. This has the potential to reduce infection rates and confound the impact of antibiotic prophylaxis.

Patient-related Considerations

Obesity, Large-volume Blood Loss, and Fluid Resuscitation

A several-fold increase in the risk of surgical site infections in patients with higher percent of body fat suggests the need for adjusted dosing of antimicrobial agents.10  Obese patients have increased volumes of distribution, altered protein binding, metabolism, and elimination.11–13  Vancomycin and gentamicin are commonly used antibiotics given at higher doses when used in obese patients. Limited evidence that suggests larger volumes of distribution in obese patients affect the clearance of gentamicin,14  while the effects of obesity on the pharmacokinetics of vancomycin remain somewhat unclear.15 

Current guidelines recommend 3 g of cefazolin dosing in patients with body mass greater than or equal to 120 kg.8  This is a weak recommendation because of the paucity of data. One study found that in patients with body mass index of 40 or higher, higher body mass index was associated with reduced achievement of target serum cefazolin concentration after a 2-g initial dose and a second dose at 3 h.16  A more recent study in bariatric surgery patients suggested that a single 2-g dose of cefazolin was sufficient to exceed mean minimum inhibitory concentration for methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus in adipose tissue samples.17  Although a separate study did not show a significant difference, there was a trend toward increasing surgical site infections in patients not receiving the increased cefazolin dose.18 

Guidelines from the United States and Canada recommend redosing prophylactic antibiotics in case of excessive blood loss, defined as more than 1,500 ml.8,19  These recommendations are consistent with conclusions from two small studies in spinal surgery patients, one of which has demonstrated a correlation between blood loss and reduced tissue cefazolin concentration.20,21  The volume of intravenously administered fluid has also been shown to correlate with serum and reduced tissue concentrations of antibiotics.22  Some authors suggest that patients who receive more than 2,000 ml of intravenous fluid may need antibiotic redosing.23 

Allergic Reactions and Cross-reactivity

Patients with reported penicillin allergy may have a 50% or higher likelihood of developing surgical site infections because of suboptimal performance of second-line agents.24,25  Although vancomycin provides appropriate antimicrobial coverage for Gram-positive flora (the predominant cause of surgical site infections in clean procedures) from a microbiologic standpoint, the increased administration time of 1 to 2 h and time before incision (within 120 min)8  has led centers to try to time incision for 60 to 120 min after start of infusion. Utilizing this protocol, Blumenthal et al.24  found that less than 3% of patients received vancomycin within 60 to 120 min, although Garey et al.26  actually found that the surgical site infection rate in cardiac surgery was lowest for patients whose infusion started 16 to 60 min before incision. Additional reasons for increased surgical site infections with vancomycin alone could be the underappreciated role of Gram-negative pathogens in these infections27  and the greater effectiveness of cephalosporins as compared with glycopeptides for methicillin-sensitive S. aureus.25 

Because 85 to 95% of patients with documented antibiotic allergy have negative skin testing,28,29  further investigation into the individual reaction would optimize antimicrobial coverage and may decrease the frequency of surgical site infection. Formal allergy testing is feasible in patients with unclear types of reactions to penicillin or cephalosporins who are expected to undergo elective surgery.30  Evidence of successful and safe penicillin skin testing carried out by intensivists suggests that perioperative physicians may also utilize such a test.31 

In patients with documented or presumed immunoglobulin E–mediated reaction to penicillin (anaphylaxis, bronchospasm, or urticaria), current guidelines recommend against using cephalosporins or carbapenems for surgical prophylaxis.8  It should be noted, however, that cefazolin has low cross-reactivity with penicillin because of a unique side chain32  and carbapenems demonstrate less than 1% cross-reactivity with penicillin.33  In a single center, not one of 282 patients with reported penicillin allergy suffered adverse consequences when administered cefazolin.34  Furthermore, the majority of patients with immunoglobulin E–mediated reaction to penicillin can tolerate penicillin within a decade.35  Thus, even in patients with documented immunoglobulin E–mediated reaction to a first-line antibiotic, formal allergy testing may demonstrate tolerance to penicillin if the reaction occurred in the distant past.36 

Clinically Relevant Drug Interactions

A number of antibiotics used for surgical prophylaxis manifest significant interactions with other perioperative medications. The frequency of clinically significant interactions has not been adequately studied, but severe complications have been reported. For example, clindamycin, a commonly used second line agent for surgical site infection prophylaxis, may potentiate the effects of neuromuscular blocking agents and, if overdosed, can be fatal in the perioperative setting.37,38  Experimental studies also suggest that both clindamycin and gentamicin act synergistically with rocuronium.39  Other consistently reported interactions include profound sedative and cardiovascular effects of ciprofloxacin in patients taking methadone.40,41 

Immunosuppressed Population

Antimicrobial prophylaxis may be warranted in any procedure performed in an immunocompromised host,8  including patients receiving glucocorticoids, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and anti–tumor necrosis factor agents for chronic inflammatory diseases. Increased frequency of surgical site infection with perioperative glucocorticoid use is biologically plausible and has been reported.42  One subgroup analysis of 364 patients in a trial using steroids in cardiac surgery did not demonstrate increased frequency of surgical site infection in the steroid group,43  whereas another study of patients on chronic steroids having lumbar fusion showed an association between steroid use and surgical site infection.42  Surgical site infection may be impacted by the dose of steroid and the chronicity of its use. Studies of perioperative discontinuation of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs also produced inconsistent results with respect to surgical site infection.44  It is likely that ongoing treatment of inflammatory bowel disease with anti–tumor necrosis factor agents does not increase the frequency of surgical site infection after abdominal or large joint surgery.45,46  However, one large study did demonstrate a 50% increase in organ space infections and anastomotic leaks in immunosuppressed Crohn’s disease patients after elective colectomy.47  In this study the immunosuppressive regimen included corticosteroids, which confounds the result. Acknowledging the low quality of available evidence that originates from studies of low-risk patients, the World Health Organization Global Guidelines for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection suggest not discontinuing immunosuppressive medication before surgery for the purpose of preventing surgical site infection.9,48 

Transplant Recipients

Antimicrobial prophylaxis and treatment in transplant recipients should be individualized and depend on the procedure performed, geographic epidemiology, and net state of immunosuppression.8,49–51  Solid organ transplantations are clean-contaminated procedures in which skin flora, Gram-negative rods, and enterococci are the predominant surgical site infection pathogens.8  Most opportunistic infections occur several weeks after the initiation of immunosuppression rather than in the immediate posttransplantation period.52  Thus, the recommended antimicrobial prophylaxis regimen for heart, lung, heart–lung, kidney, and pancreas transplantation procedures is a single dose of cefazolin.8,51  Note that there is significant controversy regarding the duration of antibiotic prophylaxis, with many centers providing 48 to 72 h despite no evidence of improved outcomes and the potential for increased selection of resistant organisms.53 

Known recipient or graft colonization, surgical technique, or complexity may justify escalation of the prophylactic regimen. For example, in patients with enteric drainage of the pancreas who are at high risk of fungal infections, fluconazole may be considered.8  Surgical complexity, duration of surgery, and high surgical site infection rates also may necessitate broader antimicrobial prophylaxis in liver transplantation, although a Cochrane meta-analysis suggested the lack of evidence to support any one specific prophylactic regimen.54,55 

Solid organ transplant patients presenting for nontransplant surgery are likely at increased risk of surgical site infection because of their immunosuppression. Evidence is accumulating on the outcomes of major surgeries in posttransplantation patients. However, no formal recommendations for antimicrobial prophylaxis in this patient population have been identified.56,57 

Presence of Prosthetic Joints and Prosthetic Material

Prosthetic joints and cardiac devices are commonly encountered in patients having dental procedures. Current dental guidelines recommend against providing patients with prosthetic joints antimicrobial prophylaxis before dental procedures.58  For patients with prosthetic cardiac valves or those who underwent valve or congenital heart disease repair with prosthetic material, recommendations from the American Heart Association (Dallas, Texas) suggest that antibiotic prophylaxis of infective endocarditis is reasonable during the following procedures: (1) dental procedures with manipulation of gingival tissue or periapical region of teeth or perforation of oral mucosa; (2) respiratory tract procedures; and (3) procedures on infected skin or musculoskeletal tissue. The American Heart Association does not recommend antimicrobial endocarditis prophylaxis in patients undergoing genitourinary or gastrointestinal tract procedures.59 

Microbiome-related Considerations

Human skin teems with an estimated 3.8 × 1013 microorganisms, more bacteria than human cells. Microorganisms from the skin and nasal passages are the most likely origin of surgical site infection in clean operations.60  The human gut is likewise home to a diverse microbial community. In disease and injury, including elective surgery, the microbial density and metabolite production can change dramatically.61,62  Numerous planned and unplanned interventions in the perioperative period directly influence the gut microbiota. For example, both enteral and parenteral antibiotics cause dysbiosis by killing commensal organisms. The loss of benefit from commensal pathogens can occur through several known mechanisms such as loss of competitive niche exclusion, antimicrobial inhibitory peptides, and intraspecies communication (quorum sensing). Reduction of the skin microbiome by application of skin antisepsis and nasal decolonization are primary strategies for reduction of surgical site infection.60  In colonic surgery, mechanical bowel preparation alone has a significant impact on the microbiota aside from removal of bulk contents. One randomized trial evaluating the effect of mechanical bowel preparation on fecal microbiota demonstrated marked reduction in some species (Clostridium, Bifidobacteria, Lactobacillis, and Enterobacteriaceae), whereas they did not see any decrease in Enterococcus and Staphylococcus.63  Importantly, mechanical bowel preparation also disrupts the mucosal layer of the colon, which can affect intracellular signaling and luminal pH. The use of antibiotics and critical illness in postoperative or injured surgical patients has shown a dramatic change in our microbiome, with a particular change in loss of microbial diversity.64  Marked alterations in the microbiome have been identified in patients with a long length of stay in the hospital and in patients who had a planned pancreaticoduodenectomy. The microbiome in 50 patients studied preoperatively demonstrated that the microbiome of these patients were enriched with Klebsiella and Bacteroides and were depleted of anaerobic taxa. Further, patients with a postoperative pancreatic fistula contained increased Klebsiella and decreased commensal anaerobes.65  Although we are far from understanding the specific role of the gut microbiome in healing of surgical anastomosis, there is active investigation into this area.61 

Numerous studies have demonstrated increased risk of postoperative infection in a vast array of surgical patients who are colonized with resistant pathogens such as methicillin-resistant S. aureus, extended spectrum β-lactamase producers, and carbapenemase-resistant Enterobacteriaceae.66  Because of this known increased risk, it may be reasonable to alter preoperative preparation, especially for S. aureus, using strategies that may include preoperative screening and surface decontamination (mupirocin).67  The decision to adjust perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis to cover known resistant species should take into account the procedure and reservoir of the resistant pathogen.8,68,69 

Methicillin-resistant S. aureus

Several studies in cardiothoracic, gastrointestinal, and orthopedic procedures have demonstrated a correlation between colonization with S. aureus and the development of surgical site infection.42  Guidelines produced by the American College of Surgeons (Chicago, Illinois) and the Surgical Infection Society (East Northport, New York) in 2017 identified this problem and noted that screening and decolonization should depend on baseline surgical site infection and methicillin-resistant S. aureus rates.70  Guidelines from the American Society of Health System Pharmacists (Bethesda, Maryland) recommend screening and decolonization for all patients colonized with S. aureus before total joint replacement and cardiac procedures.8  Methicillin-resistant S. aureus bundles (screening, decolonization, contact precautions, and hand hygiene) are noted to be highly effective when all components are implemented. The guidelines further note that there is no specific standard decolonization strategy supported by the literature; nasal mupirocin has been used alone and in combination with chlorhexidine gluconate bathing. Povidone–iodine solutions have also being used to decolonize the anterior nares.71  These methods should be performed close to the time of surgery to be effective, ideally within 3 months.72 

The threat of postoperative methicillin-resistant S. aureus infection has caused some providers to prescribe vancomycin and vancomycin plus a β-lactam for prophylaxis for a wide variety of procedures. In a review of more than 70,000 procedures matched by propensity scoring, vancomycin prophylaxis had a clear benefit for reduction of surgical site infection (in cardiac surgery only) but was associated with unintended harm, namely an increase in acute kidney injury across all populations studied. Screening and directed prophylaxis may maximize benefits while minimizing harm. When prescribed for methicillin-resistant S. aureus colonization, vancomycin as well as standard prophylaxis (e.g., cefazolin) should be administered in combination.8  Finally, vancomycin should not be administered as prophylaxis to methicillin-resistant S. aureus–negative patients.25,70 

Controversies in Selected Cardiac Procedures

Cardiac Implantable Electrophysiologic Devices and Infection

Implantable cardiac electronic device infections continue to rise.73  Infections can occur as an infection of the generator pocket, the leads, and/or involve endocardial structures. Cardiac implantable electrophysiologic device infections now constitute 10% of all endocarditis cases.74  There has been an increase in the incidence of infectious endocarditis, in part because of the increased use of cardiac implantable electrophysiologic devices.75  Surveys document that physicians frequently administer antibiotics to these patients in nonstandard ways.76  Complete cardiac implantable electrophysiologic device hardware removal should be performed for definite infectious endocarditis cases. Parenteral antibiotics should be given, but optimal timing for reimplantation is unknown.75 

Antibiotic Envelope for Cardiac Implantable Electrophysiologic Device Infections

A randomized controlled trial assessing the safety and efficacy of an absorbable, antibiotic-eluting envelope was completed, with 3,495 people in the envelope group and 3,488 people in the control group. A total of 25 patients in the envelope group and 42 patients in the control group developed an infection that required the removal or revision of the cardiac implantable electrophysiologic device pocket; major cardiac implantable electrophysiologic device–related infections occurred in 32 patients in the envelope group compared to 51 patients in the control group. The use of an antibacterial envelope led to a significantly lower rate of revisions caused by infection and significantly fewer major cardiac implantable electrophysiologic device infections.77  Given that the trial was international, prospective, and randomized, these results suggest this needs to be considered when implanting cardiac implantable electrophysiologic devices. However, an accompanying editorial noted that the number of cases of bacteremia and endocarditis was higher in the intervention group, and this finding leads one to question the efficacy of the envelope.78 

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

Survey data regarding antimicrobial prophylaxis and surveillance practice patterns were obtained from extracorporeal membrane oxygenation coordinators and directors internationally.79  Of 556 surveys that were sent out to the 172 extracorporeal membrane oxygenation centers, 223 (41%) responded, and 198 completed the survey. There was marked variability between centers; the majority of centers administer prophylactic antibiotics. Given the lack of high-quality evidence and a lack of randomized trials, this variability should perhaps be expected. Surveillance tended to include routine blood cultures despite a lack of evidence for such practice.79 

The relative incidence of infections and the efficacy of prophylactic regimens was evaluated in a systematic review that included Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry studies, as well as data from individual centers. Rates of infection ranged from 7.6% in neonates to 20.9% in adults.80  In two single-center studies, all subjects received prophylactic antibiotics and had a prevalence of infections of 16.1% and 18.4%, respectively.80,81  Bloodstream infections were predominant in most of the studies, ranging from 2.6 to 19.5% prevalence, and rates of respiratory infections ranged from 1.4 to 15.8%.80  One review did not find a benefit for prophylactic antibiotics in two retrospective studies.80  Given changes in the care of these patients, multicenter randomized trials of prophylactic antibiotics are needed.

Drug Dosing in Patients Receiving Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

The pharmacokinetics of drugs appear to be affected in at least three ways during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: drug sequestration by the circuit, increased volume of distribution, and altered drug clearance.82  Drug sequestration can occur by drug binding to the circuit, which may also lead to the circuit serving as a reservoir of certain drugs. The factors that seem important for these phenomena are the oxygenator materials, the types of conduit tubing, the circuit age, and the composition of the priming solutions.82  Drug characteristics that influence drug sequestration are multiple and include the molecular size, the negative log of the acid dissociation constant (pKa), degree of ionization, lipophilicity, and predilection for plasma protein binding.82 

Inflammatory and pharmacokinetic changes can lead to changes in the volume of distribution of drugs. Changes in blood pH also change the volume of distribution, and acidosis can be a common occurrence in patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Finally, drug clearance appears to be lower than normal when patients are on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; drug accumulation can occur, but the use of inotropic support and increased cardiac outputs may counter this accumulation.83 

The recommendations from a recent review are to use β-lactam antibiotics because they are utilized in other critically ill patients. The use of continuous vancomycin infusions during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation may help any extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-related pharmacokinetic changes. Recommendations for antifungal agents are sparse because of limited data. There are some data regarding voriconazole, suggesting a need for increased dosing because of sequestration.82 

Bloodstream Infections in Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Patients

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients are at increased risk for bloodstream infections because they are in cardiogenic shock.84  Large cannulae may be present for prolonged durations and are not easily exchanged if they become infected.85  Finally, the presence of central lines and arterial catheters for prolonged periods may also increase the risk for bloodstream infection.85 

Gram-negative rods were most frequently isolated from venous arterial–extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients with bloodstream infection including Aeromonas hydrophilia/caviae, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.85  The venous venous–extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients also had infections with Gram-negative rods including P. aeruginosa, A. baumannii, Burkholderia cepacia, and Enterobacter aerogenes, but they also had Candida infections. Notably, the venous arterial–extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients in this study received prophylactic antimicrobial therapy with vancomycin and ceftriaxone for 48 h. All extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients were bathed with chlorhexidine daily, and central lines are coated with minocycline/rifampin. Evaluation for infection was done if there was fever, leukocytosis, or purulence at an entry site.85  Finally, bloodstream infection in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients was not associated with in-hospital mortality.85 

Controversies in Gastrointestinal Procedures: Bowel and Biliary Tract Prophylaxis

The idea of utilizing oral antibiotics to decrease perioperative infections began shortly after penicillin was discovered and was combined with purgatives to decrease microbial colonization. When the formal combination of mechanical bowel preparation and neomycin and erythromycin was introduced, surgical site infection rates were reduced from 43 to 9%.86  In a review of 5,800 colorectal surgery patients, no significant difference with mechanical bowel preparation versus no preparation in terms of leakage or surgical site infection were found.87  Whether to use mechanical bowel preparation, oral antibiotics alone, or in combination with systematic antibiotics has remained controversial. A review of the results of the 2012 to 2015 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database addressed the question as to what extent mechanical bowel preparation and antibiotic bowel preparation decreased infection after elective colorectal resection.88  The combined mechanical bowel preparation/antibiotic bowel preparation when compared with no preparation had fewer surgical site infection (odds ratio, 0.39), organ space infection (odds ratio, 0.56), wound dehiscence (odds ratio, 0.43), and anastomotic leak (odds ratio, 0.54), all significantly lower. A 2014 Cochrane review found high quality evidence that antibacterial therapy targeting colonic pathogens reduced the risk of surgical site infection but could not determine whether this was attenuated by mechanical bowel preparation.89  Antibiotic bowel preparation alone compared with no preparation also has significant benefits, whereas mechanical bowel preparation alone did not. As such, for patients undergoing elective colon or rectal resection, both mechanical agents and oral agents are recommended whenever feasible.90,91 

Unlike open cholecystectomy, the benefits of antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing planned elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy is controversial,92  although some studies have suggested a decline in postoperative infection.93,94  Patients who undergo more complex biliary, hepatic, or pancreatic surgery may have special considerations with respect to surgical site infection risk. Aside from the typical risk factors, these patients may have had recent contact with the healthcare system via procedures to further clarify their underlying anatomy/disease. Through endoscopic or transhepatic procedures, they may introduce or encourage potential future colonizing or infecting pathogens in the setting of partially obstructed biliary drainage systems. There appears to be a correlation between intraoperative biliary cultures and future pathogens identified at the time of infection.95 

In a randomized controlled trial of 126 patients with planned hepatobiliary pancreatic surgery, patients received targeted prophylaxis based on known pathogens in biliary cultures versus standard prophylaxis, which was with either a second-generation cephalosporin or up to three antibiotics targeted for the resistant pathogens. Infection rates were high in both groups (43.5% in the targeted group and 71% in the standard group). This study suggests that multidrug-resistant colonization should be considered when using perioperative prophylaxis in high-risk hepatobiliary pancreatic surgery.96 

Duration of prophylaxis has also been controversial in liver surgery. Four randomized controlled trials have examined the issue of extended duration under the premise that ongoing contamination related to bile leakage may occur after surgery and would incur added risk of surgical site infection. One study suggested that prophylaxis for up to 5 days postoperatively was beneficial,97  whereas another study reported that 2 days were as effective as 5 days.98  A recent consecutive series of patients having a hepatic resection without biliary reconstruction reported no difference in postoperative infection rates.99  Last, a small randomized controlled trial that included major hepatectomy with extrahepatic bile duct resection and reconstruction compared 2 days versus 4 days of antibiotics and found no difference in infectious complications between the two groups (30.2% in the 2-day group vs. 32.6% in the 4-day group).100  These studies show diligence is required in identifying infectious complications given the high rate of occurrence, but extending antibiotic duration does not appear to confer benefit. No studies in this high-risk population have limited antibiotics to the operating room only, as recommended in recent guidelines.

Controversies in Urologic Procedures: Chronic Indwelling Catheters

The topic of antibiotic prophylaxis for the insertion or removal of urinary catheters has generated numerous articles and reviews.101–106  Although there has been documented efficacy in the prevention of urinary tract infection with gentamicin use before removal of catheters, the use of gentamicin around the insertion and removal of urinary catheters before surgery has been discouraged by national recommendations. In one interventional study, rates of use on insertion went from 42 to 2% and on removal from 28 to 3%. In the final 40 weeks of this study, no gentamicin was used for either indication. Importantly, there were no significant differences in perioperative bacteriuria, surgical site infection, or acute kidney injury in this study.107 

Controversies in Orthopedic Procedures

Different Administration Protocols for Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Joint Replacements

Prosthetic joint infection is an expensive and destructive complication for patients. The only “accepted” antibiotic prophylaxis is within 1 h of the surgical incision, which decreases surgical site infection in primary joint surgeries.108,109  Single-center studies of adding a 1-g dose of vancomycin to the cephalosporin prophylactic antibiotic documented a lower rate of prosthetic joint infection in primary total knee arthroplasties and total hip arthroplasties.110  Notably, these patients also received antibiotic cement.

Another more controversial technique of prophylaxis is the administration of antibiotics into the bone, or intraosseous regional administration, to increase antibiotic concentrations near the prosthetic joints.111,112  These studies have been small, and although they have shown increased concentrations of antibiotics, they have not evaluated patient outcomes

Intraoperative vancomycin powder has also been evaluated as a strategy to prevent infection. These studies have not been randomized. In one retrospective study of 115 patients,113  42 had received intraoperative vancomycin. There were no significant differences in the number of surgical site infections, need for multiple antibiotics, reoperations, or length of stay between the control group and vancomycin powder recipients.113 

Neurosurgery

A randomized, prospective, multicenter trial is underway assessing the safety and efficacy of topical vancomycin in neurosurgical patients undergoing a craniotomy or noninstrumented spine procedures. A report on the adverse events and microbiology profiles from the first year of enrollment has just been published.114  Systemic absorption of the topical vancomycin was monitored by measuring serum vancomycin levels at 6 and 20 h after wound closure. Microbial cultures were done of the anterior nares and surgical site before draping, 48 h after wound closure, and at 2 weeks and 3 months after surgery. Serious adverse events were reported in 5 of 257 control patients and 2 of 514 patients who were in the treatment group; therefore, no significant difference in serious adverse events or adverse events occurred between the groups. Serum vancomycin levels in patients who received topical vancomycin but no intravenous vancomycin were 6.3 ± 1.8 micrograms/ml. Microbiologic studies documented that topical vancomycin did not change the risk of S. aureus colonization after cranial surgery in an interim report, but final results are still pending.114 

External Ventricular Drains

A consensus statement has been formulated by the Neurocritical Care Society (Chicago, Illinois) given the paucity ofhigh-quality clinical data. The group involved included neurologists, neuroinfectious experts, internists, pharmacotherapy professionals, and nurses.115  The infection rates of external drains have been reported between 0 and 32% with typical rates of about 10%.115  The definition of infection varies; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention do not require positive cerebrospinal fluid cultures, whereas other authors do.116,117 

The recommendation from the Neurocritical Care Society was for one dose of antimicrobials before external ventricular drain insertion (low-quality evidence); they recommended against the use of antimicrobials for the duration of external ventricular drain placement (low-quality evidence). The Neurocritical Care Society did recommend using antimicrobial-impregnated catheters (moderate-quality evidence) and using intraventricular antimicrobials to treat ventriculostomy-related infections when there was a failure to respond to intravenous antibiotics or the organisms involved had very high minimum inhibitory concentrations that would be difficult to achieve in the cerebrospinal fluid (moderate-quality evidence).115  More recent studies have confirmed that prolonged antibiotics are associated with an increase in nosocomial infections118  and do not provide more protection.119 

Conclusions

Significant controversies in antimicrobial prophylaxis remain, and there are numerous opportunities for improving practice through rigorously designed and implemented studies. More antibiotics are not always more effective in reducing surgical site infection. There are significant gaps between guidelines and practices, predominately with duration of antibiotic prophylaxis exceeding current consensus guidelines.

Acknowledgments

The authors dedicate this work to the memory of Brian Kavanagh, M.D., Professor and former Chair of the Department of Anesthesia, University of Toronto, who gave guidance, encouragement, and sage advice during its development.

Research Support

Support was provided solely from institutional and/or departmental sources.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

References

1.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Antibiotic Prescribing and Use. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
2018
.
Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/antibiotic-use/index.html. Accessed June 19, 2019.
2.
Dellit
TH
,
Owens
RC
,
McGowan
JE
Jr
,
Gerding
DN
,
Weinstein
RA
,
Burke
JP
,
Huskins
WC
,
Paterson
DL
,
Fishman
NO
,
Carpenter
CF
,
Brennan
PJ
,
Billeter
M
,
Hooton
TM
;
Infectious Diseases Society of America; Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America
: .
Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America guidelines for developing an institutional program to enhance antimicrobial stewardship.
Clin Infect Dis
.
2007
;
44
:
159
77
3.
White House
: .
Executive order: Combating antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
2015
4.
Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs (ASP): Department of Veterans Affairs
2019
.
VHA 1031
5.
Tarchini
G
,
Liau
KH
,
Solomkin
JS
: .
Antimicrobial stewardship in surgery: Challenges and opportunities.
Clin Infect Dis
.
2017
;
64
:
112
4
6.
Mondelo García
C
,
Gutiérrez Urbón
JM
,
Pérez Sanz
C
,
Martín Herranz
MI
: .
Auditing and improving surgical antibiotic prophylaxis.
Surg Infect (Larchmt)
.
2018
;
19
:
679
83
7.
Kremer
KM
,
Foster
RT
,
Drobnis
EZ
,
Hyde
KJ
,
Brennaman
LM
: .
Non-indicated use of prophylactic antibiotics in gynaecological surgery at an academic tertiary medical centre.
J Obstet Gynaecol
.
2018
;
38
:
543
7
8.
Bratzler
DW
,
Dellinger
EP
,
Olsen
KM
,
Perl
TM
,
Auwaerter
PG
,
Bolon
MK
,
Fish
DN
,
Napolitano
LM
,
Sawyer
RG
,
Slain
D
,
Steinberg
JP
,
Weinstein
RA
;
American Society of Health-System Pharmacists; Infectious Disease Society of America; Surgical Infection Society; Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America
: .
Clinical practice guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery.
Am J Health Syst Pharm
.
2013
;
70
:
195
283
9.
Berríos-Torres
SI
,
Umscheid
CA
,
Bratzler
DW
,
Leas
B
,
Stone
EC
,
Kelz
RR
,
Reinke
CE
,
Morgan
S
,
Solomkin
JS
,
Mazuski
JE
,
Dellinger
EP
,
Itani
KMF
,
Berbari
EF
,
Segreti
J
,
Parvizi
J
,
Blanchard
J
,
Allen
G
,
Kluytmans
JAJW
,
Donlan
R
,
Schecter
WP
;
Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee
: .
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guideline for the prevention of surgical site infection, 2017.
JAMA Surg
.
2017
;
152
:
784
91
10.
Waisbren
E
,
Rosen
H
,
Bader
AM
,
Lipsitz
SR
,
Rogers
SO
Jr
,
Eriksson
E
: .
Percent body fat and prediction of surgical site infection.
J Am Coll Surg
.
2010
;
210
:
381
9
11.
Alobaid
AS
,
Hites
M
,
Lipman
J
,
Taccone
FS
,
Roberts
JA
: .
Effect of obesity on the pharmacokinetics of antimicrobials in critically ill patients: A structured review.
Int J Antimicrob Agents
.
2016
;
47
:
259
68
12.
Janmahasatian
S
,
Duffull
SB
,
Ash
S
,
Ward
LC
,
Byrne
NM
,
Green
B
: .
Quantification of lean bodyweight.
Clin Pharmacokinet
.
2005
;
44
:
1051
65
13.
Janson
B
,
Thursky
K
: .
Dosing of antibiotics in obesity.
Curr Opin Infect Dis
.
2012
;
25
:
634
49
14.
Bauer
LA
,
Edwards
WA
,
Dellinger
EP
,
Simonowitz
DA
: .
Influence of weight on aminoglycoside pharmacokinetics in normal weight and morbidly obese patients.
Eur J Clin Pharmacol
.
1983
;
24
:
643
7
15.
Grace
E
: .
Altered vancomycin pharmacokinetics in obese and morbidly obese patients: What we have learned over the past 30 years.
J Antimicrob Chemother
.
2012
;
67
:
1305
10
16.
Edmiston
CE
,
Krepel
C
,
Kelly
H
,
Larson
J
,
Andris
D
,
Hennen
C
,
Nakeeb
A
,
Wallace
JR
: .
Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in the gastric bypass patient: Do we achieve therapeutic levels?
Surgery
.
2004
;
136
:
738
47
17.
Chen
X
,
Brathwaite
CE
,
Barkan
A
,
Hall
K
,
Chu
G
,
Cherasard
P
,
Wang
S
,
Nicolau
DP
,
Islam
S
,
Cunha
BA
: .
Optimal cefazolin prophylactic dosing for bariatric surgery: No need for higher doses or intraoperative redosing.
Obes Surg
.
2017
;
27
:
626
9
18.
Hussain
Z
,
Curtain
C
,
Mirkazemi
C
,
Gadd
K
,
Peterson
GM
,
Zaidi
STR
: .
Prophyl actic cefazolin dosing and surgical site infections: Does the dose matter in obese patients?
Obes Surg
.
2019
;
29
:
159
65
19.
Dewar
B
,
MacDonald
M
,
Lambert
C
,
Clare Barry
C
,
Orvidas
MC
: .
Position statement: Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of surgical site infection.
IPAC
.
2016
.
20.
Swoboda
SM
,
Merz
C
,
Kostuik
J
,
Trentler
B
,
Lipsett
PA
: .
Does intraoperative blood loss affect antibiotic serum and tissue concentrations?
Arch Surg
.
1996
;
131
:
1165
72
21.
Polly
DW
Jr.
,
Meter
JJ
,
Brueckner
R
,
Asplund
L
,
van Dam
BE
: .
The effect of intraoperative blood loss on serum cefazolin level in patients undergoing instrumented spinal fusion: A prospective, controlled study.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
.
1996
;
21
:
2363
7
22.
Markantonis
SL
,
Kostopanagiotou
G
,
Panidis
D
,
Smirniotis
V
,
Voros
D
: .
Effects of blood loss and fluid volume replacement on serum and tissue gentamicin concentrations during colorectal surgery.
Clin Ther
.
2004
;
26
:
271
81
23.
Jutte
PC
,
Ploegmakers
JJ
,
Bulstra
SK
: .
Skeletal muscle and plasma concentrations of cefazolin.
Br J Anaesth
.
2016
;
117
:
3
5
24.
Blumenthal
KG
,
Ryan
EE
,
Li
Y
,
Lee
H
,
Kuhlen
JL
,
Shenoy
ES
: .
The impact of a reported penicillin allergy on surgical site infection risk.
Clin Infect Dis
.
2018
;
66
:
329
36
25.
Bull
AL
,
Worth
LJ
,
Richards
MJ
: .
Impact of vancomycin surgical antibiotic prophylaxis on the development of methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus surgical site infections: Report from Australian Surveillance Data (VICNISS).
Ann Surg
.
2012
;
256
:
1089
92
26.
Garey
KW
,
Dao
T
,
Chen
H
,
Amrutkar
P
,
Kumar
N
,
Reiter
M
,
Gentry
LO
: .
Timing of vancomycin prophylaxis for cardiac surgery patients and the risk of surgical site infections.
J Antimicrob Chemother
.
2006
;
58
:
645
50
27.
Berríos-Torres
SI
,
Yi
SH
,
Bratzler
DW
,
Ma
A
,
Mu
Y
,
Zhu
L
,
Jernigan
JA
: .
Activity of commonly used antimicrobial prophylaxis regimens against pathogens causing coronary artery bypass graft and arthroplasty surgical site infections in the United States, 2006–2009.
Control Hosp Epidemiol
.
2014
;
35
:
231
9
28.
Sacco
KA
,
Bates
A
,
Brigham
TJ
,
Imam
JS
,
Burton
MC
: .
Clinical outcomes following inpatient penicillin allergy testing: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Allergy
.
2017
;
72
:
1288
96
29.
Moran
R
,
Devchand
M
,
Smibert
O
,
Trubiano
JA
: .
Antibiotic allergy labels in hospitalized and critically ill adults: A review of current impacts of inaccurate labelling.
Br J Clin Pharmacol
.
2019
;
85
:
492
500
30.
Shenoy
ES
,
Macy
E
,
Rowe
T
,
Blumenthal
KG
: .
Evaluation and management of penicillin allergy: A review.
JAMA
.
2019
;
321
:
188
99
31.
Arroliga
ME
,
Wagner
W
,
Bobek
MB
,
Hoffman-Hogg
L
,
Gordon
SM
,
Arroliga
AC
: .
A pilot study of penicillin skin testing in patients with a history of penicillin allergy admitted to a medical ICU.
Chest
.
2000
;
118
:
1106
8
32.
Macy
E
,
Blumenthal
KG
: .
Are cephalosporins safe for use in penicillin allergy without prior allergy evaluation?
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract
.
2018
;
6
:
82
89
33.
Khan
DA
,
Solensky
R
: .
Drug allergy.
J Allergy Clin Immunol
.
2010
;
125
:
S126
37
34.
Dellinger
EP
,
Jain
R
,
Pottinger
PS
: .
The influence of reported penicillin allergy.
Clin Infect Dis
.
2018
;
66
:
337
8
35.
Trubiano
JA
,
Adkinson
NF
,
Phillips
EJ
: .
Penicillin allergy is not necessarily forever.
JAMA
.
2017
;
318
:
82
3
36.
American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology: Don’t overuse non-β lactam antibiotics in patients with a history of penicillin allergy, without an appropriate evaluation: Choosing wisely.
ABIM Foundation
.
2014
.
37.
Wu
G
,
Wu
G
,
Wu
H
: .
A costly lesson: Fatal respiratory depression induced by clindamycin during postoperative patient controlled analgesia.
Pain Physician
.
2015
;
18
:
E429
31
38.
al Ahdal
O
,
Bevan
DR
: .
Clindamycin-induced neuromuscular blockade.
Can J Anaesth
.
1995
;
42
:
614
7
39.
Lee
SI
,
Lee
JH
,
Park
SY
,
Park
JW
: .
Do bupivacaine, clindamycin, and gentamicin at their clinical concentrations enhance rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block?
Korean J Anesthesiol
.
2013
;
64
:
346
52
40.
Herrlin
K
,
Segerdahl
M
,
Gustafsson
LL
,
Kalso
E
: .
Methadone, ciprofloxacin, and adverse drug reactions.
Lancet
.
2000
;
356
:
2069
70
41.
Nair
MK
,
Patel
K
,
Starer
PJ
: .
Ciprofloxacin-induced torsades de pointes in a methadone-dependent patient.
Addiction
.
2008
;
103
:
2062
4
42.
Singla
A
,
Qureshi
R
,
Chen
DQ
,
Nourbakhsh
A
,
Hassanzadeh
H
,
Shimer
AL
,
Shen
FH
: .
Risk of surgical site infection and mortality following lumbar fusion surgery in patients with chronic steroid usage and chronic methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
.
2019
;
44
:
E408
13
43.
McClure
GR
,
Belley-Cote
EP
,
Harlock
J
,
Lamy
A
,
Stacey
M
,
Devereaux
PJ
,
Whitlock
RP
: .
Steroids in cardiac surgery trial: A substudy of surgical site infections.
Can J Anaesth
.
2019
;
66
:
182
92
44.
Fleury
G
,
Mania
S
,
Hannouche
D
,
Gabay
C
: .
The perioperative use of synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
Swiss Med Wkly
.
2017
;
147
:
w14563
45.
Gregory
MH
,
McKinnon
A
,
Stwalley
D
,
Hippensteel
KJ
,
Loftus
EV
Jr.
,
Ciorba
MA
,
Olsen
MA
,
Deepak
P
: .
Anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy for inflammatory bowel diseases do not impact serious infections after arthroplasty.
J Crohns Colitis
.
2019
;
13
:
182
8
46.
Schad
CA
,
Haac
BE
,
Cross
RK
,
Syed
A
,
Lonsako
S
,
Bafford
AC
: .
Early postoperative anti-TNF therapy does not increase complications following abdominal surgery in Crohn’s disease.
Dig Dis Sci
.
2019
;
64
:
1959
66
47.
Abou Khalil
M
,
Abou-Khalil
J
,
Motter
J
,
Vasilevsky
CA
,
Morin
N
,
Ghitulescu
G
,
Boutros
M
: .
Immunosuppressed patients with Crohn’s disease are at increased risk of postoperative complications: Results from the ACS–NSQIP Database.
J Gastrointest Surg
.
2019
;
23
:
1188
97
48.
WHO
:
Global Guidelines for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection
.
Geneva, Switzerland
,
World Health Organization
,
2016
49.
Fishman
JA
: .
Infection in solid-organ transplant recipients.
N Engl J Med
.
2007
;
357
:
2601
14
50.
Kalil
AC
,
Sandkovsky
U
,
Florescu
DF
: .
Severe infections in critically ill solid organ transplant recipients.
Clin Microbiol Infect
.
2018
;
24
:
1257
63
51.
Anesi
JA
,
Blumberg
EA
,
Abbo
LM
: .
Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent surgical site infections in solid organ transplantation.
Transplantation
.
2018
;
102
:
21
34
52.
Angarita
SAK
,
Russell
TA
,
Kaldas
FM
: .
Pneumonia after liver transplantation.
Curr Opin Organ Transplant
.
2017
;
22
:
328
35
53.
Abbo
LM
,
Grossi
PA
;
Practice AICo
: .
Surgical site infections: Guidelines from the American Society of Transplantation Infectious Diseases Community of Practice.
Clin Transplant
.
2019
, pp
e13589
54.
Statlender
L
,
Yahav
D
,
Ben-Zvi
H
,
Margalit
I
,
Ferder
A
,
Goldberg
E
,
Mor
E
,
Bishara
J
,
Cohen
J
: .
Perioperative prophylaxis with single-dose cefazolin for liver transplantation: A retrospective study.
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol
.
2019
55.
Almeida
RA
,
Hasimoto
CN
,
Kim
A
,
Hasimoto
EN
,
El Dib
R
: .
Antibiotic prophylaxis for surgical site infection in people undergoing liver transplantation.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
.
2015
, pp
CD010164
56.
de’Angelis
N
,
Esposito
F
,
Memeo
R
,
Lizzi
V
,
Martìnez-Pérez
A
,
Landi
F
,
Genova
P
,
Catena
F
,
Brunetti
F
,
Azoulay
D
: .
Emergency abdominal surgery after solid organ transplantation: A systematic review.
World J Emerg Surg
.
2016
;
11
:
43
57.
Klement
MR
,
Penrose
CT
,
Bala
A
,
Green
CL
,
Mather
RC
III
,
Wellman
SS
,
Bolognesi
MP
,
Seyler
TM
: .
Complications of total hip arthroplasty following solid organ transplantation.
J Orthop Sci
.
2017
;
22
:
295
9
58.
Sollecito
TP
,
Abt
E
,
Lockhart
PB
,
Truelove
E
,
Paumier
TM
,
Tracy
SL
,
Tampi
M
,
Beltrán-Aguilar
ED
,
Frantsve-Hawley
J
: .
The use of prophylactic antibiotics prior to dental procedures in patients with prosthetic joints: Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for dental practitioners: A report of the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs.
J Am Dent Assoc
.
2015
;
146
:
11
16.e8
59.
Wilson
W
,
Taubert
KA
,
Gewitz
M
,
Lockhart
PB
,
Baddour
LM
,
Levison
M
,
Bolger
A
,
Cabell
CH
,
Takahashi
M
,
Baltimore
RS
,
Newburger
JW
,
Strom
BL
,
Tani
LY
,
Gerber
M
,
Bonow
RO
,
Pallasch
T
,
Shulman
ST
,
Rowley
AH
,
Burns
JC
,
Ferrieri
P
,
Gardner
T
,
Goff
D
,
Durack
DT
;
American Heart Association Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis, and Kawasaki Disease Committee; American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young; American Heart Association Council on Clinical Cardiology; American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia; Quality of Care and Outcomes Research Interdisciplinary Working Group
: .
Prevention of infective endocarditis: Guidelines from the American Heart Association: A guideline from the American Heart Association Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis, and Kawasaki Disease Committee, Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young, and the Council on Clinical Cardiology, Council on Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia, and the Quality of Care and Outcomes Research Interdisciplinary Working Group.
Circulation
.
2007
;
116
:
1736
54
60.
Wenzel
RP
: .
Surgical site infections and the microbiome: An updated perspective.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol
.
2019
, pp
1
7
61.
Alverdy
JC
,
Hyoju
SK
,
Weigerinck
M
,
Gilbert
JA
: .
The gut microbiome and the mechanism of surgical infection.
Br J Surg
.
2017
;
104
:
e14
23
62.
Gilbert
JA
,
Quinn
RA
,
Debelius
J
,
Xu
ZZ
,
Morton
J
,
Garg
N
,
Jansson
JK
,
Dorrestein
PC
,
Knight
R
: .
Microbiome-wide association studies link dynamic microbial consortia to disease.
Nature
.
2016
;
535
:
94
103
63.
Harrell
L
,
Wang
Y
,
Antonopoulos
D
,
Young
V
,
Lichtenstein
L
,
Huang
Y
,
Hanauer
S
,
Chang
E
: .
Standard colonic lavage alters the natural state of mucosal-associated microbiota in the human colon.
PLoS One
.
2012
;
7
:
e32545
64.
Krezalek
MA
,
DeFazio
J
,
Zaborina
O
,
Zaborin
A
,
Alverdy
JC
: .
The shift of an intestinal “microbiome” to a “pathobiome” governs the course and outcome of sepsis following surgical injury.
Shock
.
2016
;
45
:
475
82
65.
Rogers
MB
,
Aveson
V
,
Firek
B
,
Yeh
A
,
Brooks
B
,
Brower-Sinning
R
,
Steve
J
,
Banfield
JF
,
Zureikat
A
,
Hogg
M
,
Boone
BA
,
Zeh
HJ
,
Morowitz
MJ
: .
Disturbances of the perioperative microbiome across multiple body sites in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Pancreas
.
2017
;
46
:
260
7
66.
Gurusamy
KS
,
Koti
R
,
Wilson
P
,
Davidson
BR
: .
Antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) related complications in surgical patients.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
.
2013
, pp
CD010268
67.
Bode
LG
,
Kluytmans
JA
,
Wertheim
HF
,
Bogaers
D
,
Vandenbroucke-Grauls
CM
,
Roosendaal
R
,
Troelstra
A
,
Box
AT
,
Voss
A
,
van der Tweel
I
,
van Belkum
A
,
Verbrugh
HA
,
Vos
MC
: .
Preventing surgical-site infections in nasal carriers of Staphylococcus aureus.
N Engl J Med
.
2010
;
362
:
9
17
68.
Sporer
SM
,
Rogers
T
,
Abella
L
: .
Methicillin-resistant and methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus screening and decolonization to reduce surgical site infection in elective total joint arthroplasty.
J Arthroplasty
.
2016
;
31
:
144
7
69.
Schweizer
ML
,
Chiang
HY
,
Septimus
E
,
Moody
J
,
Braun
B
,
Hafner
J
,
Ward
MA
,
Hickok
J
,
Perencevich
EN
,
Diekema
DJ
,
Richards
CL
,
Cavanaugh
JE
,
Perlin
JB
,
Herwaldt
LA
: .
Association of a bundled intervention with surgical site infections among patients undergoing cardiac, hip, or knee surgery.
JAMA
.
2015
;
313
:
2162
71
70.
Ban
KA
,
Minei
JP
,
Laronga
C
,
Harbrecht
BG
,
Jensen
EH
,
Fry
DE
,
Itani
KM
,
Dellinger
EP
,
Ko
CY
,
Duane
TM
: .
American College of Surgeons and Surgical Infection Society: Surgical Site Infection Guidelines, 2016 Update.
J Am Coll Surg
.
2017
;
224
:
59
74
71.
Anderson
MJ
,
David
ML
,
Scholz
M
,
Bull
SJ
,
Morse
D
,
Hulse-Stevens
M
,
Peterson
ML
: .
Efficacy of skin and nasal povidone-iodine preparation against mupirocin-resistant methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and S. aureus within the anterior nares.
Antimicrob Agents Chemother
.
2015
;
59
:
2765
73
72.
Murphy
E
,
Spencer
SJ
,
Young
D
,
Jones
B
,
Blyth
MJ
: .
MRSA colonisation and subsequent risk of infection despite effective eradication in orthopaedic elective surgery.
J Bone Joint Surg Br
.
2011
;
93
:
548
51
73.
Sandoe
JA
,
Barlow
G
,
Chambers
JB
,
Gammage
M
,
Guleri
A
,
Howard
P
,
Olson
E
,
Perry
JD
,
Prendergast
BD
,
Spry
MJ
,
Steeds
RP
,
Tayebjee
MH
,
Watkin
R
;
British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy; British Heart Rhythm Society; British Cardiovascular Society; British Heart Valve Society; British Society for Echocardiography
: .
Guidelines for the diagnosis, prevention and management of implantable cardiac electronic device infection: Report of a joint Working Party project on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (BSAC, host organization), British Heart Rhythm Society (BHRS), British Cardiovascular Society (BCS), British Heart Valve Society (BHVS) and British Society for Echocardiography (BSE).
J Antimicrob Chemother
.
2015
;
70
:
325
59
74.
Murdoch
DR
,
Corey
GR
,
Hoen
B
,
Miró
JM
,
Fowler
VG
Jr
,
Bayer
AS
,
Karchmer
AW
,
Olaison
L
,
Pappas
PA
,
Moreillon
P
,
Chambers
ST
,
Chu
VH
,
Falcó
V
,
Holland
DJ
,
Jones
P
,
Klein
JL
,
Raymond
NJ
,
Read
KM
,
Tripodi
MF
,
Utili
R
,
Wang
A
,
Woods
CW
,
Cabell
CH
;
International Collaboration on Endocarditis-Prospective Cohort Study (ICE-PCS) Investigators
: .
Clinical presentation, etiology, and outcome of infective endocarditis in the 21st century: The International Collaboration on Endocarditis–Prospective Cohort Study.
Arch Intern Med
.
2009
;
169
:
463
73
75.
Wang
A
,
Gaca
JG
,
Chu
VH
: .
Management considerations in infective endocarditis: A review.
JAMA
.
2018
;
320
:
72
83
76.
Basil
A
,
Lubitz
SA
,
Noseworthy
PA
,
Reynolds
MR
,
Gold
H
,
Yassa
D
,
Kramer
D
: .
Periprocedural antibiotic prophylaxis for cardiac implantable electrical device procedures: Results from a Heart Rhythm Society survey.
JACC Clin Electrophysiol
.
2017
;
3
:
632
4
77.
Tarakji
KG
,
Mittal
S
,
Kennergren
C
,
Corey
R
,
Poole
JE
,
Schloss
E
,
Gallastegui
J
,
Pickett
RA
,
Evonich
R
,
Philippon
F
,
McComb
JM
,
Roark
SF
,
Sorrentino
D
,
Sholevar
D
,
Cronin
E
,
Berman
B
,
Riggio
D
,
Biffi
M
,
Khan
H
,
Silver
MT
,
Collier
J
,
Eldadah
Z
,
Wright
DJ
,
Lande
JD
,
Lexcen
DR
,
Cheng
A
,
Wilkoff
BL
;
WRAP-IT Investigators
: .
Antibacterial envelope to prevent cardiac implantable device infection.
N Engl J Med
.
2019
;
380
:
1895
905
78.
Perez
F
,
Bonomo
RA
: .
Cardiac devices enveloped with an ounce of prevention.
N Engl J Med
.
2019
;
380
:
1965
6
79.
Kao
LS
,
Fleming
GM
,
Escamilla
RJ
,
Lew
DF
,
Lally
KP
: .
Antimicrobial prophylaxis and infection surveillance in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients: A multi-institutional survey of practice patterns.
ASAIO J
.
2011
;
57
:
231
8
80.
O’Horo
JC
,
Cawcutt
KA
,
De Moraes
AG
,
Sampathkumar
P
,
Schears
GJ
: .
The evidence base for prophylactic antibiotics in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.
ASAIO J
.
2016
;
62
:
6
10
81.
O’Neill
JM
,
Schutze
GE
,
Heulitt
MJ
,
Simpson
PM
,
Taylor
BJ
: .
Nosocomial infections during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.
Intensive Care Med
.
2001
;
27
:
1247
53
82.
Cheng
V
,
Abdul-Aziz
MH
,
Roberts
JA
,
Shekar
K
: .
Optimising drug dosing in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.
J Thorac Dis
.
2018
;
10
:
629
41
83.
Tsai
D
,
Lipman
J
,
Roberts
JA
: .
Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic considerations for the optimization of antimicrobial delivery in the critically ill.
Curr Opin Crit Care
.
2015
;
21
:
412
20
84.
Parenica
J
,
Jarkovsky
J
,
Malaska
J
,
Mebazaa
A
,
Gottwaldova
J
,
Helanova
K
,
Litzman
J
,
Dastych
M
,
Tomandl
J
,
Spinar
J
,
Dostalova
L
,
Lokaj
P
,
Tomandlova
M
,
Pavkova
MG
,
Sevcik
P
,
Legrand
M
;
GREAT Network
: .
Infectious complications and immune/inflammatory response in cardiogenic shock patients: A prospective observational study.
Shock
.
2017
;
47
:
165
74
85.
Menaker
J
,
Galvagno
S
,
Rabinowitz
R
,
Penchev
V
,
Hollis
A
,
Kon
Z
,
Deatrick
K
,
Amoroso
A
,
Herr
D
,
Mazzeffi
M
: .
Epidemiology of blood stream infection in adult extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients: A cohort study.
Heart Lung
.
2019
;
48
:
236
9
86.
Nichols
RL
,
Condon
RE
: .
Preoperative preparation of the colon.
Surg Gynecol Obstet
.
1971
;
132
:
323
37
87.
Güenaga
KF
,
Matos
D
,
Wille-Jørgensen
P
: .
Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
.
2011
, pp
CD001544
88.
Klinger
AL
,
Green
H
,
Monlezun
DJ
,
Beck
D
,
Kann
B
,
Vargas
HD
,
Whitlow
C
,
Margolin
D
: .
The role of bowel preparation in colorectal surgery: Results of the 2012–2015 ACS–NSQIP data.
Ann Surg
.
2019
;
269
:
671
7
89.
Nelson
RL
,
Gladman
E
,
Barbateskovic
M
: .
Antimicrobial prophylaxis for colorectal surgery.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
.
2014
, pp
CD001181
90.
Migaly
J
,
Bafford
AC
,
Francone
TD
,
Gaertner
WB
,
Eskicioglu
C
,
Bordeianou
L
,
Feingold
DL
,
Steele
SR
;
Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons
: .
The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons clinical practice guidelines for the use of bowel preparation in elective colon and rectal surgery.
Dis Colon Rectum
.
2019
;
62
:
3
8
91.
Fry
DE
: .
Antimicrobial bowel preparation for elective colon surgery.
Surg Infect (Larchmt)
.
2016
;
17
:
269
74
92.
Sanabria
A
,
Dominguez
LC
,
Valdivieso
E
,
Gomez
G
: .
Antibiotic prophylaxis for patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
.
2010
, pp
CD005265
93.
Matsui
Y
,
Satoi
S
,
Hirooka
S
,
Kosaka
H
,
Kawaura
T
,
Kitawaki
T
: .
Reappraisal of previously reported meta-analyses on antibiotic prophylaxis for low-risk laparoscopic cholecystectomy: An overview of systematic reviews.
BMJ Open
.
2018
;
8
:
e016666
94.
Kim
SH
,
Yu
HC
,
Yang
JD
,
Ahn
SW
,
Hwang
HP
: .
Role of prophylactic antibiotics in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg
.
2018
;
22
:
231
47
95.
Fong
ZV
,
McMillan
MT
,
Marchegiani
G
,
Sahora
K
,
Malleo
G
,
De Pastena
M
,
Loehrer
AP
,
Lee
GC
,
Ferrone
CR
,
Chang
DC
,
Hutter
MM
,
Drebin
JA
,
Bassi
C
,
Lillemoe
KD
,
Vollmer
CM
,
Fernández-Del Castillo
C
: .
Discordance between perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis and wound infection cultures in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy.
JAMA Surg
.
2016
;
151
:
432
9
96.
Okamura
K
,
Tanaka
K
,
Miura
T
,
Nakanishi
Y
,
Noji
T
,
Nakamura
T
,
Tsuchikawa
T
,
Okamura
K
,
Shichinohe
T
,
Hirano
S
: .
Randomized controlled trial of perioperative antimicrobial therapy based on the results of preoperative bile cultures in patients undergoing biliary reconstruction.
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci
.
2017
;
24
:
382
93
97.
Sano
S
,
Sugiura
T
,
Kawamura
I
,
Okamura
Y
,
Ito
T
,
Yamamoto
Y
,
Ashida
R
,
Ohgi
K
,
Kurai
H
,
Uesaka
K
: .
Third-generation cephalosporin for antimicrobial prophylaxis in pancreatoduodenectomy in patients with internal preoperative biliary drainage.
Surgery
.
2019
;
165
:
559
64
98.
Togo
S
,
Tanaka
K
,
Matsuo
K
,
Nagano
Y
,
Ueda
M
,
Morioka
D
,
Endo
I
,
Shimada
H
: .
Duration of antimicrobial prophylaxis in patients undergoing hepatectomy: A prospective randomized controlled trial using flomoxef.
J Antimicrob Chemother
.
2007
;
59
:
964
70
99.
Sakoda
M
,
Iino
S
,
Mataki
Y
,
Kawasaki
Y
,
Kurahara
H
,
Maemura
K
,
Ueno
S
,
Natsugoe
S
: .
Influence of a shorter duration of post-operative antibiotic prophylaxis on infectious complications in patients undergoing elective liver resection.
Surg Infect (Larchmt)
.
2017
;
18
:
149
56
100.
Sugawara
G
,
Yokoyama
Y
,
Ebata
T
,
Mizuno
T
,
Yagi
T
,
Ando
M
,
Nagino
M
: .
Duration of antimicrobial prophylaxis in patients undergoing major hepatectomy with extrahepatic bile duct resection: A randomized controlled trial.
Ann Surg
.
2018
;
267
:
142
8
101.
Niel-Weise
BS
,
van den Broek
PJ
,
da Silva
EM
,
Silva
LA
: .
Urinary catheter policies for long-term bladder drainage.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
.
2012
, pp
CD004201
102.
Marschall
J
,
Carpenter
CR
,
Fowler
S
,
Trautner
BW
;
CDC Prevention Epicenters Program
: .
Antibiotic prophylaxis for urinary tract infections after removal of urinary catheter: Meta-analysis.
BMJ
.
2013
;
346
:
f3147
103.
Lusardi
G
,
Lipp
A
,
Shaw
C
: .
Antibiotic prophylaxis for short-term catheter bladder drainage in adults.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
.
2013
, pp
CD005428
104.
Maki
DG
: .
ACP Journal Club. Review: Antibiotic prophylaxis on removal of urinary catheters reduces symptomatic urinary tract infections.
Ann Intern Med
.
2013
;
159
:
JC9
105.
Wein
AJ
: .
Re: Antibiotic prophylaxis for urinary tract infections after removal of urinary catheter: Meta-analysis.
J Urol
.
2015
;
194
:
411
2
106.
Scarlato
RM
,
Dowsey
MM
,
Buising
KL
,
Choong
PF
,
Peel
TN
: .
What is the role of catheter antibiotic prophylaxis for patients undergoing joint arthroplasty?
ANZ J Surg
.
2017
;
87
:
153
8
107.
Bond
SE
,
Boutlis
CS
,
Jansen
SG
,
Miyakis
S
: .
Discontinuation of peri-operative gentamicin use for indwelling urinary catheter manipulation in orthopaedic surgery.
ANZ J Surg
.
2017
;
87
:
E199
203
108.
Mangram
AJ
: .
A brief overview of the 1999 CDC Guideline for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
J Chemother
.
2001
;
13
:
35
9
109.
Prokuski
L
: .
Prophylactic antibiotics in orthopaedic surgery.
J Am Acad Orthop Surg
.
2008
;
16
:
283
93
110.
Burger
JR
,
Hansen
BJ
,
Leary
EV
,
Aggarwal
A
,
Keeney
JA
: .
Dual-agent antibiotic prophylaxis using a single preoperative vancomycin dose effectively reduces prosthetic joint infection rates with minimal renal toxicity risk.
J Arthroplasty
.
2018
;
33
:
213
8
111.
Dietz
MJ
: .
CORR Insights®: The John N. Insall Award: Higher tissue concentrations of vancomycin achieved with intraosseous regional prophylaxis In revision TKA: A randomized controlled trial.
Clin Orthop Relat Res
.
2018
;
476
:
75
6
112.
Young
SW
,
Zhang
M
,
Moore
GA
,
Pitto
RP
,
Clarke
HD
,
Spangehl
MJ
: .
The John N. Insall Award: Higher tissue concentrations of vancomycin achieved with intraosseous regional prophylaxis in revision TKA: A randomized controlled trial.
Clin Orthop Relat Res
.
2018
;
476
:
66
74
113.
Grabel
ZJ
,
Boden
A
,
Segal
DN
,
Boden
S
,
Milby
AH
,
Heller
JG
: .
The impact of prophylactic intraoperative vancomycin powder on microbial profile, antibiotic regimen, length of stay, and reoperation rate in elective spine surgery.
Spine J
.
2019
;
19
:
261
6
114.
Radwanski
RE
,
Christophe
BR
,
Pucci
JU
,
Martinez
MA
,
Rothbaum
M
,
Bagiella
E
,
Lowy
FD
,
Knopman
J
,
Connolly
ES
: .
Topical vancomycin for neurosurgery wound prophylaxis: An interim report of a randomized clinical trial on drug safety in a diverse neurosurgical population.
J Neurosurg
.
2018
, pp
1
8
115.
Fried
HI
,
Nathan
BR
,
Rowe
AS
,
Zabramski
JM
,
Andaluz
N
,
Bhimraj
A
,
Guanci
MM
,
Seder
DB
,
Singh
JM
: .
The insertion and management of external ventricular drains: An evidence-based consensus statement: A statement for healthcare professionals from the Neurocritical Care Society.
Neurocrit Care
.
2016
;
24
:
61
81
116.
Horan
TC
,
Andrus
M
,
Dudeck
MA
: .
CDC/NHSN surveillance definition of health care-associated infection and criteria for specific types of infections in the acute care setting.
Am J Infect Control
.
2008
;
36
:
309
32
117.
Mayhall
CG
,
Archer
NH
,
Lamb
VA
,
Spadora
AC
,
Baggett
JW
,
Ward
JD
,
Narayan
RK
: .
Ventriculostomy-related infections: A prospective epidemiologic study.
N Engl J Med
.
1984
;
310
:
553
9
118.
Dellit
TH
,
Chan
JD
,
Fulton
C
,
Pergamit
RF
,
McNamara
EA
,
Kim
LJ
,
Ellenbogen
RG
,
Lynch
JB
: .
Reduction in Clostridium difficile infections among neurosurgical patients associated with discontinuation of antimicrobial prophylaxis for the duration of external ventricular drain placement.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol
.
2014
;
35
:
589
90
119.
Murphy
RK
,
Liu
B
,
Srinath
A
,
Reynolds
MR
,
Liu
J
,
Craighead
MC
,
Camins
BC
,
Dhar
R
,
Kummer
TT
,
Zipfel
GJ
: .
No additional protection against ventriculitis with prolonged systemic antibiotic prophylaxis for patients treated with antibiotic-coated external ventricular drains.
J Neurosurg
.
2015
;
122
:
1120
6